Contact: Pete Sepp or Annie Patnaude, 703-683-5700, both of the National Taxpayers Union

ALEXANDRIA, Va., June 23 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The U.S. Supreme Court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the Kelo v. City of New London case today has wide implications for taxpayers, not just property owners, according to the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU), a non-partisan citizen group that filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case on behalf of the homeowners. John Berthoud, President of NTU, offered the following reaction on the heels of the decision:

"By giving governments a green light to bulldoze citizens' homes in the name of development schemes that supposedly promise higher revenues, the Supreme Court is also granting politicians a license to trample on overburdened taxpayers. Property rights have always been inseparable from taxpayer rights, which is why this ruling is one of the most shocking setbacks for economic freedom and limited government in a decade.

Within hours of this decision being issued, overreaching bureaucrats and their political allies around the country began declaring victory on behalf of subsidized development schemes that will not only cost citizens the residences and businesses they worked hard to build, but will also cost taxpayers the money they worked hard to earn. From shopping malls to sports stadiums, the Court has unjustly given its blessing to many crony-capitalist projects that depend more heavily on public funding than free-market principles to succeed.

Justice O'Connor was absolutely right when she pointed out that the beneficiaries of this ruling 'are likely to be those with disproportionate power and influence in the political process.' Even the majority of Justices acknowledged that states are free to enact restrictions on eminent-domain power grabs. At least these two facts give taxpayers hope, and give NTU a mission. As an organization that has fought back against big government for 35 years, we will not surrender our property rights or taxpayer rights because of this ruling. We the people will take back the Fifth Amendment, state by state, community by community, if necessary."

NTU was founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes and smaller government at all levels. In addition to joining an amicus brief with eight other groups on behalf of the property owners in Kelo, NTU also signed an October 2004 coalition letter from over 40 organizations urging the Bush Administration to "affirm its support for property rights and refrain from filing a brief in Kelo." Note: Copies of the brief and the letter are available online at http://www.ntu.org.

You know what? I assumed when Republicans came into power we would correct things - especially after 9/11. What I learned is that the Republican party used Conservatives - waves a red flag issue in Conservatives' faces to get them all distracted and then expands the power of the state over the individual - a DC version of the shell game. We are like toads in slowly boiling water.

The ruling stinks, yes. But Congress is drawing up laws to counteract this decision as we type. This will be fixed before the year is out. The Supremes even pointed out that Congress can change this at their leisure.

Italian corporativismo is synonymous with Mussolini's Fascism. As opposed to the "right of the individual", fascism recognizes the "power of interest groups". The definition of fascism has been corrupted today to describe an oppressive government of "jack booted thugs". The real definition and dangers of fascism, loss of individual rights and power, have somehow been swept away. Sad to say, Mussolini would be quite pleased with the direction of America and the European Union.

The ruling stinks, yes. But Congress is drawing up laws to counteract this decision as we type. This will be fixed before the year is out. The Supremes even pointed out that Congress can change this at their leisure.

So now Congress has to go trampling on state and local rights to do what the Supremes should have done? Don't get me wrong, I don't know wether or not such a law would be good or bad. Such action would further erode, however small, the federalist system.

Toyoto wants to build a new plant (not sure if it's a auto or parts plant) in TN...and guess what the LT Gov owns at least 300 of those acres. Lot of farm land involved to be stolen for a fraction of the true replacement value.

19
posted on 06/23/2005 4:45:54 PM PDT
by GailA
(Glory be to GOD and his only son Jesus.)

They are only allowing us to retain our firearms legally for right now to keep people calm. That will be taken away from us soon as well, within my lifetime. The US will fall within 100 years if things don't change. And that is the truth, I feel sorry for my kids.

When will a group of people say "We've had it. We will take a stand here. They must jail or kill the lot of us but we will not budge."

They said that at the Alamo and they were immortalized and inspired others to fight even harder. Jefferson's quote about blood watering the tree of liberty from time to time comes to mind here. It's either toads in boiling water or ..?

Without a doubt this is a deadly grab for power. The basis of a free society is the ownership of property. If that is further eroded then there is no freedom.

The basis of a capitalistic society is freedom to own and do with your own property what you want. God, in setting up the only society he set up, Israel, made it clear that property ownership had to be unalienable. There is no freedom outside of the ownership of property.

I can see these vultures licking their chops and getting ready to pounce. There is no place in the US now where your property rights are sacred. It reminds me of the Dred Scott decision that made all of the USA a slave state.

My 13 year old son asked me today, "If we have to pay taxes on our property after it is paid for, do we really own it dad?"

How is it that children can see through this scheme and not these "wise" judges. This is final proof of a extreme liberal court. They have taken out of our society the final cornerstone of freedom, and the rest will fall soon behind it. God help our children.

I believe that the correct approach toward campaign finance reform would be to disallow corporate donations to political campaigns. Corporations political influence should be limited to appealling directly to the people and convince them to vote in their favor. The constitution was written for the individual, not corporate entities.

Today's ruling allows for developers to buy political candidates and for candidates to repay with private property of the people.

If we take the toad analogy - When Dems are in office and do wrong by our conservative sensibilities it is as if a toad is placed in already boiling water - the toad leaps out in a flash - when Republicans are in office we toads are in the water as it begins to boil and we don't notice it because our sensitive nervous system can not perceive the boiling.

This is not true lefty hippie liberalism - since they despise business which this ruling helps - this is Statisim - power of the state and state interest over the people. But I understand what you are saying. The political meanings have all blended and become meaningless these last 12 years.

Congress can pass laws relating to federal eminent domain actions but most eminent domain actions are done by state and local authorities. Federal legislation will not affect this. You need to check your state and see how its constitution and laws stack up. If they allow too much eminent domain power in government (as Connecticut's apparently do), pressure your state legislators to fix the problem.

All that's left to fight for is Christian libertarianism in my opinion. The absolute best blueprint for a society based on this is described in "Molon Labe" by Boston T. Party. It's Free State Project in Wyoming with Christian overtones. They have started moving there.

Stevens is pretty old and Ginsberg has been ill but I wish her God speed with the battle she had with cancer. Souter and his pal aren't going anywhere. The execrable Justice Kennedy will be around long enough to cause me many more bouts with angina before the big one hits.

The question is Patricia is it bad enough to provoke a groundswell of opposition from the right and left. I think it is but I'm not sure. President Bush can certainly help by speaking about property rights, liberal justices and obstruction by fillibuster. Will he? I dunno.

He has the bully pulpit Patricia. The only remedies avaiable to change this is an amendment or the court overturning their own ruling. Won't happen if the fascist caucus stays intact unless, big unless, Congress decides to add a couple of justices to the court. :-}

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.